l&epublic of tbe tlbihppines

$,tt:prrme QI:ourt
;.Jftllrr ni Ia

FIRST DNISION

NORMAN ALFRED F. LAZARO, G.R. No. 230018

Petitioner,
Present:

GESMUNDO, CJ, Chairperson,

CAGUIOA,
- versus - CARANDANG,
ZALAMEDA, and
GAERLAN,JJ

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.
Promulgated:
JUN 2 J 2021 µ
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ -x
I
J
DECISION

CAGU1OA, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari (With Prayer for the

Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining
Order) 1 (Petition) filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the
Decision2 dated June 16, 2016 (Assailed Decision) of the Court of Appeals
(CA) Special Tenth Division and Resolution3 dated February 15, 2017
(Assailed Resolution) of the CA Former Special Tenth Division in CA-G.R.
SP No. 139927 denying petitioner Norman Alfred F. Lazaro's (Lazaro)
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and subsequent
Motion for Reconsideration, both seeking to set aside the Orders dated
August 4, 20144 (First Assailed Order) and January 21, 2015 5 (Second
Assailed Order) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch
261, in Criminal Case No. 142883.

1 Rollo, pp. 28-50.

' Id. at 11-21. Penned by Associate Justice Fiorito S. Macalino with Associate Justices Mariflor P.
Punzalan Castillo and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of the Court) concurring.
3 Id. at 23-25.
4 Id. at IO 1-102. Rendered by Presiding Judge Florian Gregory D. Abalajon.
5 Id. at 103-105.

(
Decision 2 G.R. No. 230018

Fa~ts I

On October 25, 2009, Gian Dale Galindez (Galindez), who was a

friend of Lazaro, purportedly jumped from the 26th floor of the Renaissance
2000 Condominium to his untimely 'death. At the time of the incident,
Galindez was in the presence of Lazaro and a common friend of theirs,
Kevin Jacob Escalona (Escalona). 6
1

The deceased Galindez's father ifiled a criminal complaint for Giving

Assistance to Suicide under Article 253 of the Revised Penal Code against
Lazaro and Escalona. 7 The Office ofth'e City Prosecutor of Pasig City (OCP
Pasig), where the complaint was filed, found probable cause to file an
Information for the said crime before /be RTC. 8 This prompted Lazaro and
Escalona to file a petition for review before the Department of Justice
I

(DOJ), which was granted in a Resolution9 dated February 7, 2011. On

motion for reconsideration by Galind~z's father, however, the OCP Pasig's
resolution was reinstated. 10

Meanwhile, on May 17, 201 Q, an Information was filed against

Lazaro and Escalona before the RTC. 1) Lazaro was arraigned on February 9,
2011 when, after refusing to enter a plea, the court entered a plea of not
guilty for him. 12 On August 13, 2013j Escalona filed a Motion to Quash, 13
alleging that the facts charged in t~e Information do not constitute an
offense. This motion was granted by the RTC in an Order 14 dated October
23, 2013. In the same Order, howev~r, the OCP Pasig was given ten (10)
days from receipt of the Order to file an Amended Information. The
dispositive portion of the Order states:

WHEREFORE , premises considered,

I
the Motion to Quash• is
hereby GRANTED on the ground th11t the facts charged do not constitute
an offense. Accordingly, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City is
hereby directed to file an Amended r!nformation in the instant case within
ten (I 0) days from receipt hereof.

so ORDERED. 15

6 Id. at 30-33.
7 Id. at 33.
8 Id. at )69-175. See OCP Pasig's Resolution dated May 4, 2010.
9
ld. at 177-184.
10 Id. at 185-190.
11 Id.atll6.
12 Id. at 36.
13 Id. at 130-139.
14 Id. at 141-144.
15 Id. at I 44.
 Decision 3 G.R. No. 230018

On December 6, 2013, 16 the OCP Pasig filed a Compliance/Motion

for Leave to Admit Amended Information 17 with the Amended Information 18
attached, notably dropping Escalona from the charges. The filing of the
Amended Information was done 17 days from the OCP Pasig's receipt of the
RTC's Order dated October 23, 2013, and therefore beyond the ten-day
period provided in the said Order. 19 Lazaro assailed the Compliance/Motion
for Leave to Admit Amended Information via a Motion to Expunge. 20

Subsequently, the OCP Pasig, through its authorized private

prosecutor, filed a Motion for Clarification21 dated March 28, 2014, pointing
out that the dispositive portion of the RTC's Order dated October 23, 2013
contained contradictory statements, i.e., granting Escalona's Motion to
Quash, while at the same time giving the prosecution an opportunity to
correct the defect in the Information. 22 Lazaro again filed a Motion to
Expunge in opposition to this Motion for Clarification, on the ground that
the RTC's Order dated October 23, 2013 had already become final and
immutable. 23

On August 4, 2014, the RTC issued its First Assailed Order, 24

resolving the private prosecutor's Motion for Clarification, and Lazaro's two
motions to expunge. The RTC said:

The Court, after revisiting the Order, dated October 23, 2013,
concurs with the observation of the private prosecutor that the assailed
[O]rder is indeed inconsistent if not vague. A misapprehension in the
interpretation and proper application of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 117 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure could have occurred during the
drafting or preparation of the questioned [O]rder.

Let it be made of record that the Court's intention is not really to

order the quashal of the information, but to give the prosecution an
opportunity to correct the defect by way of an amendment pursuant to
Section 4, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is
apparent from the following pronouncement of this Court on page 4, first
paragraph of the [O]rder, dated October 23, 2013, thus:

"Nonetheless, the Court is not yet ready to order the

dismissal of this case. The Court, guided by the provision
of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, is more inclined to give the
prosecution an opportunity to correct the defect in the
information by way of an amendment thereto."

16
Id. at 14.
17 Id. at 191-193.
" Id. at 194-195.
19
Id. at 14.
20
Id. at 37-38.
21
Id. at 145-150.
22
ld. at 147.
23 Id.at38.
24 Supra note 4.
 I
I

I
Decision 4j G.R. No. 230018

~oreover, in tile dispositive tortion of tile questioned order, tile

Court dITected the [DOJ] or tile IOCP Pasig] to file an Amended
Information within ten (10) days fromlreceipt of the order.
i

Hence, pursuant to the provi~ion of Section 4, Rule 117 of tile

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedute and in order to reflect tile true
intention of this Court, let the disppsitive portion of tile Order, dated
October 23, 2013, be accordingly amended

FROM:
!

"WHEREFORE. premises c~nsidered, the Motion to Quash is

hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Information in the instant case is
hereby QUASHED on the ground tilat the facts charged do not constitute
an offense. !

The [DOJ] or the [OCP Pisig] is hereby directed to file an

Amended Information in the instant case within ten (10) days from receipt
hereof." i

T0:
I

WHEREFORE, premises con~idered. the Court is convinced tilat

[the J Information in this case is defective on tile ground tilat the facts
charged do not constitute an offense.~ Pursuant to Paragraph 2, Section 4,
Rule 117 of tile Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, tile [DOJJ or tile
Office of tile Citv Prosecutor is hereby given a period of ten (10) days
from receipt of this Order to correct ~e defect by amendment.
I
If the prosecution fails to make the amendment within tile period
given or if despite tile amendment the amended information would still
suffer from tile same defect. the instant Motion to Quash would be
granted. I

I
• I
2
SO ORDERED. ' (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)

.
I
I

Lazaro filed a Motion for Recori.sideration26 dated September 29, 2014

of the RTC's First Assailed Order, !arguing that the RTC's Order dated
October 23, 2013 granting Escalona'sl Motion to Quash had already become
final and immutable when the pr@secution did not file an Amended
I

Information ten days from receipt of said Order. Hence, it can no longer be
amended or clarified by the RTC. !
I

In its Second Assailed Order,2t the RTC denied Lazaro's Motion for
I

Reconsideration, observing that the )-ZTC's Order dated October 23, 2013
was never meant to dismiss the criminal case for Giving Assistance to
I

Suicide. The fallo of the said Orderi conflictingly "granted" the Motion to
Quash, while at the same time givJng the prosecution an opportunity to
I
I
I

25
Id.
26
Id.at 106-115.
Zi Supra note 5.
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 230018

correct the defect in the Information by way of amendment pursuant to

Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. It is the latter pronouncement that
the body of the Order is consistent with.

Undeterred, Lazaro assailed the RTC's orders via a Petition for

Certiorari2 8 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA. In its
Assailed Decision, 29 the CA denied the Petition for Certiorari. The CA
found that the RTC's Order dated October 23, 2013 must indeed be read as
ordering the filing of an amended information instead of a quashal of the
original information, thereby amounting to a denial ofEscalona's Motion to
Quash. Being a denial of a motion to quash, it was interlocutory, and may be
amended by the RTC to make it conform to law and jurisprudence. The
proper course of action for the RTC on the Motion to Quash, it being based
on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute a crime, is to give the
prosecution the opportunity to correct the defect by amendment.

Lazaro's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration30 of the Assailed

Decision was denied by the CA in its Assailed Resolution. 31

Hence, this Petition.

Issues

The sole issue submitted for resolution of the Court is whether the CA
committed a serious reversible error when it affirmed the RTC's
modification/revision of its earlier Order.

Ruling of the Court

The Petition lacks merit.

Lazaro argues that when the RTC granted Escalona's Motion to

Quash in its Order dated October 23, 2013, and when the prosecution
subsequently failed to file the Amended Information within the ten-day
period allowed by the RTC, the said Order became final and executory,
effectively dismissing the case against him "with constitutional
aftem1 aths." 32 Being final and executory, the RTC should not have corrected
or altered the said Order as this violated the principle of immutability of
final judgment. 33

28
Id. at 76-99.
29 Supra note 2.
30 Id. at 68-75.
31 Supra note 3.
32 Id. at 41.
33 Id. at 42.
 Decision 6 G.R. No. 230018

The contention is untenable.

As correctly found by the CA, the Order dated October 23, 2013 did
not dismiss the case against Lazaro. To recall, the dispositive portion thereof
states:

'
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Quash is
hereby GRANTED on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute
an offense. Accordingly, the [OCP Pasig] is hereby directed to file an
Amended Information in the instant case within ten (IO) days from receipt
hereof.

SO ORDERED. 34

For reference, Escalona' s Motion to Quash prayed for the following:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that subject information be QUASHED, and Criminal Case No.
142883, be accordingly DISMISSE~.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for. 35

(Emphasis in the original)

Given the foregoing, the first and second sentences of the fallo of the
RTC's Order dated October 23, 2013 are clearly contradictory to each other.
Granting the Motion to Quash would mean the quashal of the information
and dismissal of the criminal case. If the RTC truly intended this, there
would be no reason for it to have ord6red the OCP Pasig or the DOJ to file
an amended information within ten ,days from receipt, because the case
would have already been dismissed. '

The Court is aware of the doctrine that where there is a conflict

between the dispositive portion or fallo of a decision and the opinion of the
court contained in the body of the de~ision, the fallo will prevail. However,
this rule is not without exception. Where the inevitable conclusion from the
body of the decision is so clear as to' show that there was a mistake in the
dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail. 36

In this case, the body of the Order dated October 23, 2013 discourages
any conclusion that the intent of the: RTC was to dismiss the case against
Lazaro. The Order states:
34
Id. at 144.
35
Id. at 137.
36 The Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit v. CA,, G.R. No. 154559. October 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 554,
567; Grageda v. Gomez, G.R. No. 169536, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 677,691; Rosales v. CA,
G.R. No. 137566, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 179, 192.
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 230018

Nonetheless, the Conrt is not yet ready to order the dismissal of

this case. The Court, guided by the provision[ sJ of Sections 4 and 5, Rule
117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, is more inclined to give
the prosecution an opportunity to correct the defect in the
information by way of an amendment thereto. 37 (Emphasis supplied)

The RTC's reference to Sections 4 and 5, Rule 117 of the Revised

Rules of Criminal Procedure further buttresses the conclusion that it never
intended to dismiss the case pending before it. These provisions state:

Sec. 4. Amendment of the complaint or information. - If the

motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or
information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that
an amendment be made.

If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not

constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court an
opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be
granted if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the
complaint or information still suffers from the same defect despite the
amendment.

Sec. 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash. - If the motion to

quash is sustained, the court may order that another complaint or
information be filed except as provided in section 6 of this rule. If the
order is made, the accused, if in custody, shall not be discharged unless
admitted to bail. If no order is made or if having been made, no new
information is filed within the time specified in the order or within such
further time as the court may allow for good cause, the accused, if in
custody, shall be discharged unless he is also in custody for another
charge. (Emphasis, underscoring and italics supplied)

Prevailing jurisprudence on the foregoing prov1s10ns offers further

insight into the effect of filing a motion to quash on the ground that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense, as in this case. In People v. Andrade,38
the Court said:

If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute

an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to
correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted if the
prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or information
still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment.

If the. defect in the information is curable by amendment, the

motion to quash shall be denied and the prosecution shall be ordered
to file an amended information. Generally, the fact that the allegations in
the information do not constitute an offense, or that the information does
not conform substantially to the prescribed form, are defects curable by

37 Rollo, p. 144.
38 G.R. No. 187000, November 24, 2014, 741 SCRA 460.

I
Decision 8 G.R. No. 230018

amendment. Corollary to this rule, the court should give the prosecution
an opportunity to amend the information.

In the present case, the RTC judge outrightly dismissed the cases
without giving the prosecution an opportunity to amend the defect in the
Informations. In People v. Talao Perez, this Court ruled that, " ... even
granting that the information in question is defective, as pointed out by the
accused, it appearing that the defects thereof can be cured by
amendment, the lower court should not have dismissed the case but
should have ordered the Fiscal to amend the information." When there
is any doubt about the sufficiency of the complaint or information, the
court should direct its amendment or that a new information be filed , and
save the necessity of appealing the case on technical grounds when the
complaint might easily be amended. 39 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied; citation.s and emphasis in the original omitted)

The exact same doctrine was affirmed by the Court m People v.

Sandiganbayan: 40

When a motion to quash is! filed challenging the validity and

sufficiency of an Information, and the: defect may be cured by amendment,
courts must deny the motion to quash and order the prosecution to
file an amended Information.

Generally, a defect pertaining to the failure of an Information

to charge facts constituting an offerise is one that may be corrected by
an amendment. In such instanc~s, courts are mandated not to
automatically quash the Information; rather, it should grant the
prosecution the opportunity to cure the defect through an
j

amendment. This rule allows a case to proceed without undue delay. By

1

allowing the defect to be cured qy simple amendment, unnecessary

appeals based on technical grounds, iwhich only result to prolonging the
proceedings, are avoided. 41 (Citation~ omitted; emphasis and underscoring
supplied) ·
!

In sum, when an accused files ~ motion to quash on the ground that

the facts charged do not constitute an ioffense, the trial court is mandated to
deny the motion and give the pros~cution an opportunity to amend the
1

information.

The RTC, based solely on the! vagueness of the fallo of its Order,
cannot be presmned to have dismissed the case in direct contravention of the
foregoing provisions of the Rules iand relevant jurisprudence. This is
especially so given the unequivocal 1$iguage of the body of its Order dated
October 23, 2013. The conclusion th~t must be made, therefore, is that the
RTC never dismissed the case against Lazaro and Escalona; hence, no such

39 Id. at 473-474.
40 G.R. No. 160619, September 9, 2015, 770 SCRA! 162.
41 ld.atl76-177. .
 Decision G.R. No. 230018

dismissal could have become final and immutable. On this point, the CA is
undeniably correct.

Necessarily, also, the CA was not in error when it upheld the RTC's
First Assailed Order (granting the prosecution's Motion for Clarification).
As aptly observed by the CA, it was well within the RTC's discretion to
clarify the Order dated October 23, 2013, the latter not being a dismissal of
the criminal case. Finding that there was an irreconcilable contradiction in
thefallo of the Order dated October 23, 2013, the RTC merely exercised its
inherent power to amend and control its processes and orders to make the
same conformable to law and justice, recognized in Section 5,42 Rule 135 of
the Rules of Court.

Similarly, the Court agrees with the CA that the RTC was not in error
when it allowed the amendment of the information despite the belated filing
by the prosecution of its Compliance/Motion to Admit Amended
Information. Section 11, Rule 11 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 11. Extension of time to plead. - Upon motion and on such

terms as may be just, the court may extend the time to plead provided in
these Rules.

The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or other
pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these Rules.

It must immediately be noted that the Rules do not prescribe a period

for filing an amended information by the prosecution when so ordered by the
trial court in response to a motion to quash. In this case, the ten-day period
was set by the RTC in its discretion. Indeed, the RTC could also validly set a
shorter or longer period within reason, in the sound exercise of its discretion.
All the more should the RTC be empowered to allow or admit the amended
information despite being filed beyond the period it initially fixed in its
Order dated October 23, 2013.

42 Sec. 5. Inherent powers of court. - Every court shall have power:

(a) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
(b) To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person or persons empowered to conduct a
judicial investigation under its authority;
(c) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge
out of court, in a case pending therein;
(d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons
in any manner connected with a case before it, in every manner appertaining thereto;
(e) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending therein;
(f) To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case pending therein, and in all other cases
where it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers;
(g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice;
[and]
(h) To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other paper to be filed and used instead of
the original, and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its records and proceedings.
Decision 19 G.R. No. 230018

Courts are not precluded, in the sound exercise of their discretion, to

I

subscribe to a liberal construction of ~e rules where substantial justice may

be served thereby, and where no und[Ue injury would be suffered by any
party. In Helen Say v. Gabriel Dizo'n43 - a case where the trial court
allowed the belated submission by th~ petitioners therein of their Judicial
1

Affidavits - the Court said:

Jurisprudence explains that f,[w]hen no substantial rights are

affected and the intention to delay is hot manifest with the corresponding
[submission] x x x, it is sound judicia;i discretion to allow the same to the
'

end that the merits of the case may be f1111Y ventilated." In this relation, the
Court has held that "[ c]ourts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules
of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile
both the need to speedily put an end ~o litigation and the parties' right to
due process. In numerous cases, I this Court has allowed liberal
construction of the rules when to cJio so would serve the demands of
substantial justice and equity," as in t!iis case.

Thus, based on the consideratibns above-discussed, the Court finds

that the RTC did not act in an arbitrar~, whimsical, and capricious manner
in admitting the subject Judicial Affidavits. Verily, there was no patent
abuse of discretion which was so gross in nature amounting to an evasion
of a positive duty or to a virtual refus11 to perform a duty enjoined by law
or to act at all in contemplation of la~. What is only apparent is that the
RTC exercised its due discretion in relaxing the rigid application of the
JAR in the interest of substantial ju~tice. Accordingly, the CA erred in
attributing grave abuse of discretion against it. 44 (Citations omitted)

'

Relevantly, the mandate of thei Courts to afford the prosecution an

opportunity to correct defects in the ,Information carries with it not only
practical considerations, but also due process implications. In People v.
Andrade,45 the Court explained: I

'
I

x x x When there is any iloubt about the sufficiency of the

complaint or information, the court sf1ouid direct its amendment or that a
'

new information be filed, and save the necessity of appealing the case
on technical grounds when the com~laint might easily be amended.
I

xxxx I

The CA, however, still uphel~ the ruling of the R TC, stating that
"whatever perceived error the trihl court may have committed is
inconsequential as any intended arpendment to the infonnations filed
surely cannot cure the defects," and to justify such conclus1011, the CA
proceeded to decide the merits of thel case based merely on the all~gations
in the Infonnation. Such pronouncement, therefore, 1s speculative and
premature without giving the prosetution the opportunity to present its
evidence or, to at least, amend the rbformations. In People v. Leviste, we
stressed that the State, like any other litigant, is entitled to its day in

43 G.R. No. 227457, June 22, 2020.

44
Id.at7.
45 Supra note 38.
 Decision 11 G.R. No. 230018

court; in criminal proceedings, the public prosecutor acts for and

represents the State, and carries the burden of diligently pursuing the
criminal prosecution in a manner consistent with public interest. The
prosecutor's role in the administration of justice is to lay before the court,
fairly and fully, every fact and circumstance known to him or her to exist,
without regard to whether such fact tends to establish the guilt or
innocence of the accused and without regard to any personal conviction or
presumption on what the judge may or is disposed to do. The prosecutor
owes the State, the court and the accused the duty to lay before the court
the pertinent facts at his disposal with methodical and meticulous
attention, clarifying contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in his
evidence to the end that the court's mind may not be tortured by doubts;
that the innocent may not suffer; and that the guilty may not escape
unpunished. In the conduct of the criminal proceedings, the prosecutor has
ample discretionary power to control the conduct of the presentation of the
prosecution evidence, part of which is the option to choose what evidence
to present or who to call as witness. Thus, the RTC and the CA, by not
giving the State the opportunity to present its evidence in court or to
amend the Informations, have effectively curtailed the State's right to
due process. 46 (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)

Seen in this light, the RTC had good reason to admit the belatedly-
filed Amended Information and did not act with grave abuse of discretion in
doing so. The unavoidable conclusion is that neither the vague language of
the fallo of the RTC's Order dated October 23, 2013, nor the belated filing
of the Amended Information, render the criminal case against Lazaro
dismissed with finality.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on

Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated June 16, 2016 and Resolution
dated February 15, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 139927
are hereby AFFIRMED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the
Court on September 20, 2017 restraining the Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 261, from further continuing with the
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 142883 entitled People of the Philippines
v. Norman Alfred F. Lazaro and Kevin Jacob Escalona is hereby LIFTED.

SO ORDERED.

ALFRE

46 Id. at 474-476.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 230018

WE CONCUR:

/4 G.
~ ~ h i e f Justice
SMUNDO

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.